From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: [dpdk-techboard] [PATCH] doc: update contribution guideline for dependent work Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:54:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20171212155430.nqt27wwy4lgsgpuk@platinum> References: <20171121195905.66410-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Yigit, Ferruh" , Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" , "techboard@dpdk.org" To: "Mcnamara, John" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi, On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 02:26:34PM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote: > From: Yigit, Ferruh > > Changing some part of the libraries but not updating all dependent code > > cause maintenance problems. > > > > ... > > > > Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit > > > > > integration testing. > > > > +* If changes effect other parts of the project, update all those parts as > > well unless updating requires special knowledge. I feel that "requiring special knowledge" is a bit blury. Shouldn't we add some examples? Typically, I'm thinking about changes in ethdev that imply updating the PMDs. Any opinion for this use case?